Slashdot Mirror
Europe Agrees To Send Airline Passenger Data To US
Qedward writes "The European Parliament has approved the controversial data transfer agreement, the bilateral PNR (passenger name register), with the US which requires European airlines to pass on passenger information, including name, contact details, payment data, itinerary, email and phone numbers to the Department of Homeland Security. Under the new agreement, PNR data will be 'depersonalized' after six months and would be moved into a 'dormant database' after five years. However the information would still be held for a further 15 years before being fully 'anonymized.'"
... the German "constitution" (actually we dont have one, its called Grundgesetz, but never the less) and some public laws in Germany, I'm curious how the German government is thinking to get away with letting this pass.
In other words: German people have a government guaranty that something like this does never happen with their data. Go one "democratic" level up, and that's gone - cant happen.
I'm curious how far this is in line with the (interpreting of) the EU constitution (which is finally in place for a few years, but that took some kind of precaution to make sure it's vague enough here and there...).
If the pirate party jumps on this, things will likely go crazy.
Umm... last time I checked my globe US airlines could be hurt by a European No-Fly Zone more than Euro planes would suffer from No-US-flight zones.
In a nutshell, do you really want to fly across Libya to get to Iraq? Or do the trans-sibirian trip to Moscow?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Europe sends data about all financial transactions to the US. Does the US send data about all financial transactions to Europe?
Europe sends data about all airline passengers to the US. Does the US send data about all airline passengers to Europe?
Long ago I thought we were equal. Obviously, one of us is more equal than the other
Most people coming to the USA on holiday to see Mickey Mouse won't care. They really won't spend too long thinking about it, and it won't bother them too much. They trust the US government. They've already bought into the American Dream, they are coming for their holidays because they believe the USA is a wonderful place. The thing that will really bother these people will be if they feel unduly harrassed entering the country by customs etc.
The second large group coming to the USA will be business people, and they will be pragmatic: they will put up with the hassle and the sharing of information if it wins their company business.
I think only a small minority of people will object: those that can are sufficiently bothered and are able to take their business elsewhere (can find a US equivalent to work with) or will want to holiday elsewhere because they are unhappy with this information sharing. I don't think this is a large group of people. I suppose the important question is whether their loss to the USA is important to the well being of the USA.
Oh, Hans Ze Vacationer does care, at least those who are informed a bit. When Bush was in power, I told my wife: I won't go to the US as long as Bush is in power, halfway expecting the insanity would end after is reign. It didn't. While discussing vacations recently, my wife brought up the US (We saw a really nice documentary about San Fransisco and I've been there and I'd love to take my wife) and I said "no". She didn't understand as Bush was gone, and I told her we basically have no rights at all there. Calmed her down a bit.
Jean le Commerce is a tough nut. Yes, if he's dealing with US corporations, he probably has no choice. However, many International companies now already start to make sure conferences and meetings are done outside of the US to avoid the risk of laptops being ceized, and employees being held. That's a business risk, whether you like it or not.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Don't know, we are already sending information about all bank transactions to the US.
A local shop in Denmark had their credit transactions cancelled by the US because they bought Cuban cigars from a company in Germany to sell in their own shop. Which is perfectly legal.
Amazing stuff... So, do people still think Hugo Chavez's talk about the "arrogance and selfishness of the american imperialism" talk is crazy?
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I have seen nothing in the agreement that limits the data gathering to flights to / from the USA
And that is the one reason I see to object to this. Sharing passenger data on passengers flying to/from the US makes sense. They're just going to have to provide that info to customs when the passenger arrives anyway, getting the info ahead of time is a smart security move and is not an invasion of privacy.
However, if this provides info on passengers on flights that are not to/from the US, then it goes too far and we should object. You could make a case for providing info on previous international flights for the passengers who are on a flight to the US. For instance, someone flies from Afghanistan to London, then to US, knowing they originated in Afghanistan might be important, even if the flights were a few months apart. But even in that instance, that info should not be provided until they book a flight into the US.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false